Shutdown: A $24 billion temper tantrum

Published: Monday, November 4, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, November 1, 2013 at 2:36 p.m.

Twenty-four billion dollars. That’s the price tag of our recent 16-day government shutdown, brought to you courtesy of the tea party.

Let’s see — $24 billion divided by 50 states comes to $480 million for every state in the country. If ever the Republican Party wanted a surefire way to win the next election and endear itself to the hearts of American voters, this was definitely not the way to do it.

But the GOP could have short-circuited the off-the-chart conservatives in the tea party, and the $24 billion it squandered while having a temper tantrum at the expense of the American taxpayer could have been put into some things that would have actually benefited the people who elected them to keep the government running.

(3) Restored recent cuts that have been made to mental health care funding.

(4) Restored funding of substance abuse treatment programs that have been systematically wiped out by budget cuts.

All — I repeat, all — of these important goals could have been accomplished in North Carolina alone if tea party rock stars had thought more of the welfare of their constituents than their own popularity and screen presence. (How many are preening for future runs for higher government positions?)

But for these demigods, it was more important to make a noise and a show on the public stage than to quietly do what they are being paid to do (while other government workers were furloughed).

According to the tea party, it is vitally important that government spending be cut. We can’t let spending get out of control, it warns. Yet it cost nearly a half-billion to make that point by shutting the federal government down.

The tea party had decided that someone has to draw the line and show the great unwashed that they can’t live at the largesse of the federal government, and by God, they’re the ones who have been chosen to do it.

News polls show that 60 percent of Americans would like to see a third political party as a workable option to the current no-win stalemate between Democrats and Republicans. They want a party that lies in the middle of the political spectrum, one that conduct itself as “moderate.”

That’s moderate as in moderation, the art of finding solutions based on common ground. It includes the ability to moderate your own attitudes and behavior to achieve a workable outcome. Moderation is part of bipartisanship, the intrinsic ability to work together across political lines, the way our three-tiered system is designed to work.

But 1700s-style bipartisanship was designed to work behind closed doors where legislators could work together without the fear of being labeled traitors to their party if they made it their business to meet their opposition party colleagues in the middle.

Often, this process is best done away from the prying eyes of television cameras ready to “rat out” Republicans who may actually want to do what is best for their constituents, even when it includes working across the aisle with their Democratic counterparts.

What was once seen as the only sane way to conduct the business of governing — namely, two parties working together to hammer out legislation that is in the best interests of all of the American people — has now been branded “turncoat politics,” and those who try to work with the party to their right or their left are branded as traitors.

This is not only grandstanding at its most unreasonable, it is also profoundly dangerous. Not only is nothing productive accomplished, but those we have elected to legislate for us are rendered incapable of doing the job we elected them to do.

All of us, whether individuals or federal or state governments, have strong opinions about how to spend money. Money is a very personal matter. It’s the oil that keeps the machinery of life running. And $24 billion spent to make a point by a small faction of the Republican Party is a lot of money, no matter how you look at it. Why was it more important to make that point than to just simply help states out of their budget quandaries? This is a question that needs to be asked of every tea party candidate.

That money is gone now. Hopefully, the lessons purchased by it are not. The primary lesson that should remain forever etched in our memory is this: When legislators decide it is more important to squander money and precious legislative sessions on holding the entire country hostage to an agenda supported by only a small minority of the American people, it is time to remove these obstructionists so the House and the Senate can get back to the business of running the country.

America is still reeling from the recession that began in 2008. Recovery has been slow and hard won. But it is beginning to take hold.

The last thing we need now is a posse of self-appointed zealots who vote to continue subsidies to oil corporations at the expense of programs that would benefit the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, the homeless and immigrants in need of asylum.

<p>Twenty-four billion dollars. That's the price tag of our recent 16-day government shutdown, brought to you courtesy of the tea party.</p><p>Let's see — $24 billion divided by 50 states comes to $480 million for every state in the country. If ever the Republican Party wanted a surefire way to win the next election and endear itself to the hearts of American voters, this was definitely not the way to do it.</p><p>But the GOP could have short-circuited the off-the-chart conservatives in the tea party, and the $24 billion it squandered while having a temper tantrum at the expense of the American taxpayer could have been put into some things that would have actually benefited the people who elected them to keep the government running.</p><p>In North Carolina alone, $480 million could have:</p><p>(1) Provided more funding for education.</p><p>(2) Stopped sequester-level spending cuts to North Carolina's Head Start program.</p><p>(3) Restored recent cuts that have been made to mental health care funding.</p><p>(4) Restored funding of substance abuse treatment programs that have been systematically wiped out by budget cuts.</p><p>All — I repeat, all — of these important goals could have been accomplished in North Carolina alone if tea party rock stars had thought more of the welfare of their constituents than their own popularity and screen presence. (How many are preening for future runs for higher government positions?)</p><p>But for these demigods, it was more important to make a noise and a show on the public stage than to quietly do what they are being paid to do (while other government workers were furloughed).</p><p>According to the tea party, it is vitally important that government spending be cut. We can't let spending get out of control, it warns. Yet it cost nearly a half-billion to make that point by shutting the federal government down.</p><p>The tea party had decided that someone has to draw the line and show the great unwashed that they can't live at the largesse of the federal government, and by God, they're the ones who have been chosen to do it.</p><p>News polls show that 60 percent of Americans would like to see a third political party as a workable option to the current no-win stalemate between Democrats and Republicans. They want a party that lies in the middle of the political spectrum, one that conduct itself as “moderate.”</p><p>That's moderate as in moderation, the art of finding solutions based on common ground. It includes the ability to moderate your own attitudes and behavior to achieve a workable outcome. Moderation is part of bipartisanship, the intrinsic ability to work together across political lines, the way our three-tiered system is designed to work.</p><p>But 1700s-style bipartisanship was designed to work behind closed doors where legislators could work together without the fear of being labeled traitors to their party if they made it their business to meet their opposition party colleagues in the middle.</p><p>Often, this process is best done away from the prying eyes of television cameras ready to “rat out” Republicans who may actually want to do what is best for their constituents, even when it includes working across the aisle with their Democratic counterparts.</p><p>What was once seen as the only sane way to conduct the business of governing — namely, two parties working together to hammer out legislation that is in the best interests of all of the American people — has now been branded “turncoat politics,” and those who try to work with the party to their right or their left are branded as traitors.</p><p>This is not only grandstanding at its most unreasonable, it is also profoundly dangerous. Not only is nothing productive accomplished, but those we have elected to legislate for us are rendered incapable of doing the job we elected them to do.</p><p>All of us, whether individuals or federal or state governments, have strong opinions about how to spend money. Money is a very personal matter. It's the oil that keeps the machinery of life running. And $24 billion spent to make a point by a small faction of the Republican Party is a lot of money, no matter how you look at it. Why was it more important to make that point than to just simply help states out of their budget quandaries? This is a question that needs to be asked of every tea party candidate.</p><p>That money is gone now. Hopefully, the lessons purchased by it are not. The primary lesson that should remain forever etched in our memory is this: When legislators decide it is more important to squander money and precious legislative sessions on holding the entire country hostage to an agenda supported by only a small minority of the American people, it is time to remove these obstructionists so the House and the Senate can get back to the business of running the country.</p><p>America is still reeling from the recession that began in 2008. Recovery has been slow and hard won. But it is beginning to take hold.</p><p>The last thing we need now is a posse of self-appointed zealots who vote to continue subsidies to oil corporations at the expense of programs that would benefit the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, the homeless and immigrants in need of asylum.</p>